628 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



adopt with the conspiracies whose aim is nothing but the arti- 

 ficial raising of prices and impoverishment of the public. To cite 

 two examples : Under " trust " control refined sugar is one half to 

 three quarters of a cent per pound dearer in comparison with raw 

 sugar than before the " trust " was formed. Raw linseed-oil, on 

 the establishment of a " trust/' was immediately advanced from 

 thirty-eight to fifty-six cents a gallon. Against such extortion 

 the remedy is first and chiefly competition. With capital for 

 profitable investment abundant and cheap, no " trust " is secure in 

 its control of the market. So rapidly and suddenly have the great 

 majority of " trusts " arisen, that competition with them has not 

 yet had time fully to manifest itself. To build and equip a sugar- 

 refinery demands a million dollars and takes a year's time. In an 

 industry such as that of sugar-refining, in which trust-control has 

 been assumed only recently, such independent competitors as 

 remain unincluded derive no little advantage from the " trust's " 

 existence. They are free from regulation of their output, and find 

 a ready market for all they manufacture by keeping their prices 

 a mere fraction below the " trust's " — a condition of things cer- 

 tainly attractive to competition. 



To curb and punish the plunderers who, turning their talons 

 from their rivals, direct them upon the public, a variety of legal 

 remedies have been sought. The most important recent decision 

 affecting predatory " trusts " was that delivered by Judge Barrett 

 in the Supreme Court of New York, January 10, 1889, in the suit 

 of the people of the State against the North River Sugar-Refining 

 Company, to dissolve the company and declare its charter for- 

 feited for entering the Sugar Trust. 



Judge Barrett's decision declared the charter forfeited and the 

 company dissolved. The grounds of his judgment were that a cor- 

 poration is liable to be dissolved by the abuse of its powers, or if 

 it has exercised privileges or franchises not conferred upon it by 

 law. He held that the directors of the corporations composing the 

 " trust " had acted illegally in abdicating their direction in favor of 

 the trust-board, to whom all shares of capital stock had been trans- 

 ferred. While corporations have no legal power to consolidate, 

 the " trust " was practically a consolidation, which legally had no 

 existence nor responsibility. He declared, further, that resting 

 upon the inherent right of sovereignty, franchises are granted by 

 the State on condition that corporate privileges shall not be 

 abused, shall not antagonize the safety and welfare of the com- 

 munity. It was held proved that the Sugar Trust had not been 

 formed for protection against ruinous competition, but for the 

 illegal purpose of artificially enhancing the cost of a necessary 

 article of commerce ; that the " trust," by virtue of its combined 

 capital and control, had power to crush any rival who, without 



